Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 25 2016

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Elne Maillol Terrus.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bust of Étienne Terrus by Aristide Maillol, Elne, France. --Palauenc05 11:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 11:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment please adjust the white balance, too low contrast IMHO. --Carschten 12:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I've given it a bit more contrast. --Palauenc05 14:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment the white balance is still too greenish. --Carschten 19:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 22:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Mohnnudel.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mohnnudels --A,Ocram 16:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 16:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Ich hoffe, es kommt nicht in den falschen Hals: Gerade bei Studioaufnahmen ist das Herrichten bzw. das Ausklonen von Fehlern im Hintergrundbereich besonders wichtig, weil es den Blick auf das Objekt reduziert. In diesem Fall sind es zwei Haare, dazu noch unnötige helle Stellen (das ist Zucker, aber unscharf). Das muss einfach raus. Ich wundere mich, warum du es nicht gemacht hast, es war bereits Gegenstand einer Diskussion! --Hubertl 03:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Die Haare und die runtergefallenen Zuckerkristalle sowie die Fehler im Hintergrund wurden weggepinselt. Gruss --Nightflyer 22:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Vom Raw-File, Nightflyer? --Hubertl 04:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Natürlich nicht. Wer jetzt noch rumschrauben will, muss eben meine kleine Arbeit wiederholen :-) Gruss --Nightflyer 12:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Vielen Dank an Nightflyer! --A,Ocram 19:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ok now! --Hubertl 03:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 02:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Schleswig-Holstein,_Nordhastedt,_Fieler_Moor_NIK_0508.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Norwegische Fjordpferde als Landschaftspfleger im Naturschutzgebiet "Fieler Moor" im Kreis Dithmarschen, Schleswig-Holstein. --Nightflyer 19:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Peulle 20:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Review: Technisch OK aber schlechte Motivwahl. Weder ein Mensch noch ein Pferd wird als Hauptmotiv von hinten photografiert. Für mich so kein QI. --Verum 16:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. @Verum: Nonsense argument. If you want to show the back of an animal it is not very clever to take a photo of the nose. --Smial 09:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    Lass es mich deutsch schreibven. Es gibt durchaus hauotberufliche Pferde- und Kuhfotografen. Einer derselben hat mir da die nötigen Basics versucht zu erklären. Und da geht so ein Bild von hinten gar nicht. Erst einmal wäre es von den Lichtverhältnissen kein Problem gewesen, das Bild seitlich von vorne aufzunehmen. Und wenn wirklich das Hinterteil gewünscht ist muss man halt warten, bis das Tier den Kopf dreht wozu es idR mit relativ einfachen Tricks bewegt werden kann. Aber wenn ihr meint ist es ein QI. --Verum 13:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support We need pics showing off all parts of a horse's anatomy, the magnificent tail and the muscles on the back of the front legs are clearly defined. No trouble with the photo as such, I think a cropped version would make a good pic in the en:Horsehair article. W.carter 10:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The image is not meant to show a "Fjord horse" as a horse breed but to show "Horse doing landscape protection in the Fieler Moor". So its quite good to show the horse with its head down at the grass doing its "job". The technical quality is good. --Dirtsc 13:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 05:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Apartment building - Niš.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Apartment building in Niš. --MrPanyGoff 13:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI. Dmitry Ivanov 16:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Sunlit side looks a bit washed out with some clipping in highlights; perspective also looks fractionally unnatural, as if converging verticals have been over-corrected. (The fact that verticals appear to be completely parallel would support this guess). --Ubcule 12:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment The perspective correction of verticals was minimal because the photo is taken from a long distance. As for the colors, it is normal for a mid-day photo but this doesn't make it of a low quality, after all this is not a FP candidate.--MrPanyGoff 16:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment To be fair, the perspective issue I described is marginal in this example (emphasis "fractionally unnatural") so perhaps I'm being picky because it reminds me of more egregious examples of the blanket "corrected verticals must be parallel" dogma. But the fact that it's noticeable at all is still annoying; the perspective in the roofline indicates that it isn't a *very* long distance shot (with near-parallel lack of perspective) and very minor convergence would still be expected.

        There *is* verifiable clipping on some (non-highlight) window reflections, though I accept that how big a problem this is considered may be a matter of opinion too.

        (Pulling down the gamma seems to improve the sunny face, but it also makes the rest of the image quite dark. Though that isn't advice or something I'm asking you to do; it's just an observation). --Ubcule (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as for Ubcule. Also slight pincushion distortion. -- Smial 14:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me --Christian Ferrer 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ok for me too.--Hubertl 03:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 02:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Block in Pirot.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Residential building in the city center of Pirot. --MrPanyGoff 17:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Code 07:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good photo, and maybe I'm being picky but... perspective not quite right. Looks like converging verticals have been a little over-corrected (i.e. near-parallel) which in itself always appears a bit unnatural to me- you'd expect a *little* convergence in nature. I'm guessing from the angle of the non-verticals that the original was quite noticeably different? --Ubcule 23:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too strong distortrt. --Ralf Roletschek 14:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Images of architecture should usually be rectilinear. --C messier 14:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Where does this "rule" originate from? I understand that some architectural projections use it, but that doesn't mean it's natural in appearance or suitable for every purpose. My suspicion is that it's being blindly applied as a blanket rule beyond its original intended use. The simple fact is that unless it's been photographed from a significant distance using a telephoto, a tall building like this would always show at least *some* vertical perspective (both in photos and when viewed in person). Because it doesn't do that, the "corrected" photo gives the opposite (and vaguely unnatural) impression of bulging at the top.

      That would apply even if it had been taken straight on, and the roof line was horizontal. However, in this case there's the additional problem that one *can't* correct perspective in all directions in post-processing, so the angled roof line looks more exaggerated and mismatched with the verticals. (If it was a genuine telephoto image, the roof line would show a corresponding reduction in perspective). In short, this isn't a perspective you'd see in nature, which is why (IMHO) it looks slightly unnatural.

      I want to make clear that I'm not opposed to correction of converging verticals. Frankly, they *can* make buildings look like they're "falling over" and if the corrected result retains a plausible amount of perspective like this, it's fine. What I'm opposed to is over-correction to an extent that goes beyond natural.

      I also *don't* want to come across as if I'm being overly harsh on this specific image. It's not an especially bad example of the issues described; it just happens to be the one we're judging. If anything, this image shows it more strongly.

      There may be a case for vertically-aligned ("architectural"?) projections in some situations, but it has to be accepted that this isn't always going to look natural, nor flattering to the subject. --Ubcule (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO overcorrected perspective. Ubcule made a very good and clear statement to that point. Thanks! --Dirtsc 13:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as others --Hubertl 03:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 02:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)